Cyprus-Forum.com

[Solveit]

With regard to trespass, this avenue is now also dead. The ECHR have basically said that the IPC is the only route to take in order to claim back property, failing this you have to wait for a political solution.

If another case for trespass is taken for enforcement via another EU member states court, in all likelyhood that court will throw it out.

WHY? because until the IPC/ECHR route has been used, that court will be unable to make a decision!

WHY? Because until the IPC/ECHR rules, the FINAL OUTCOME AND DECISION by IPC/ECHR as the who gets to remain on that land, who gets restituted, who gets compensated has not been determined.

i.e. THE IPC/ECHR will determine the figures for 'loss of use' and compensation in a case where another occupier is using the land, therefore as Erolz says, because of 'double dipping'

i.e. another court won't enforce any judgement of an ROC court until the final outcome is decided because if it does it runs the risk of paying out to the GC twice, once through the enforceing the ROC court judgement, and again by 'loss of use' compensation by the IPC.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[erolz3]

And who is going to be the judge and jury as to who decides what is justified and what is not in not returning the property back. Surely it's not going to be the IPC or the courts in the north. It will be at the door steps of the ECHR.

If the IPC deems that it is not possible to return the property and the claimaint disagrees then it will go to the ECHR. Over time it will be established what is and is not valid grounds. There will be cases were the IPC deems that the propterty can not be returned and the ECHR agrees that this is a fair determination. There may be substantial numbers of such cases.

Who cares. If he can get restitution from the current user through the RoC courts at premium awards levied against the property of the users property in the south, why not do it. It will be much faster and easier, and he continues to maintain the rights for his property in the north to be acquired at another time. In the meantime, he gets money into his pocket all a while the TC will lose part or all of his land in the south to pay off claims brought on by the GC whose land is used in the north. When all else fails, the GCs will have the Orams judgement to fall back onto.

I am not sure that you assesment of how easy and chaep it will be to get a RoC ruling for tresspass, then apply to EU court outside of the RoC to enforce the judgement against threat of siezing of assets in that state is as as you think it is. If the volume of such cases gets into the 100s or beyond then it will only take longer and longer and invetibaly cost more and more. Again pursuing this option will alievate trnc/turkey of having to pay compensation for loss of use to that claimant. Ultimately if the claimant is happy with the current maket prices of compensation then the IPC would be the better route, in that it is a single procedure that addresses the compensation for the property itself and the loss of use claim as well and it is not a legal court and thus whilst specialsit advice may be worth paying for it will not be as much as laywers charge to bring a court case.

So far you have not seen a big rush to go after the TCs, other than perhaps going after the corporations run by the TCs/Turks, but not on individual themselves,...

and the reasons for this are nothing to do with GC compassion for TC so lets not pretend otherwise.

... but this will all change on a dime if they now believe that the IPC will only offer them compensation on their property at much less value than what it will be once a settlement is found.

They do not have to imagine anything. The terms under which the IPC operate are know and have been 'validited' by the ECHR. If monetary compensation is the prefered option it will be at todays market prices. If return is the prefred option it will not be a guaranteed right, it may be refused. There is nothing to 'believe'. There is the IPC and the terms under which it operates and thats it. Some interpretation of the fine detail of those terms may lead to ECHR rulings but the terms themselves including 'todays market value' and 'no automatic guarantee of return if prefered' are the terms it operates under and the ECHR as deemed as fair.

I think you will find many will only resort to taking the TCs to the "cleaners" as a last resort by the GCs.

The idea that Orams style cases represent an ability to 'take TC to the cleaners' is an false notion in itself. Firstly the Orams route is only usable if the person being claimed against has EU assets. The actual sums awarded were relatively trivial. Should they rise to silly amounts in future RoC ruling that would only call in question the credibility of the RoC courts and open the way to ECHR rulings on such amounts. The requirement to leave the property would be burdnesome but would not 'take the user to the cleaners'. The person using the property under such a senario would also have an expectation of help or redress from the TRNC or the option of leagl action against it if that is not forthcomming.

Certainly persuing the current user for trespass would inconvience that user but not 'destroy them' and produce some relative modest compensation for loss of use vs cost of bringing such action. From what I can see of the amounts awarded in the Orams case for loss of use caused by the trespass by the Orams they are significantly less than what the ECHR has awarded and the IPC is offering aginst Turkey.

If there is a chance for a lasting peace, than I can't see it happening, but if not and the constant "last chance for peace" claims by made the north at every opportunity, then at some point, the GC may take the TCs to the "cleaners" through the RoC courts.

The idea that indivduals will make their choices based on a belief that lasting peace is or is not possible and how their indivdual actions may or may not affect that is nonsense in my opinion. If GC look at the amounts awarded to plantiff in the Orams case and see that for 'loss of use' they are less than the IPC awards and can get a settlement via the IPC they are happy with, they will choose that route because to do otherwise is stupid.

Again this 'cleaners' nonsense. Look at the amounts awarded. If the defendant in such a case does not challenge the court case, he simply pays these relatively modest amounts, of which the person bringing the case laywers will take thier cut and the rest will go to the plantiff.

Just like in the Orams case, the losing part can be made to pay off most of the legal fees by the losing party...

If the defndant does not challenge the case and argue their innocence then costs against them can not be awarded. The cost of bringing such a civil case rests with the person bringing it. It is only if you 'fight' the case that costs get awarded in such cases.

The RoC can tailor the law as it wants that would benefit the plaintiff, in which case it will be the GCs.

You can not 'tailor the law' to benefit a plantiff, and certainly not because of ethnic nature of who is a plantiff and who is defendant in such laws and expect anything other than the credibility of the RoC justice system being destoryed and ending up in the ECHR.

According to the ECHR, it is not the TCs and the "trnc" that any and all "vindictive attacks" by the GCs will be against their economy in the north, but it will be against the occupying power, Turkey.

That is just rubbish. The defdant in the Orams case was specificaly NOT Turkey and the effect of it is that it has actualy removed Turkeys liability for loss of use for that property by seeking compenstation for that loss not from Turkey but from the indivdual users.

The ECHR made it very clear, that the "trnc" does not exists and only the occupying power does, therefore, any and all "vindictive attacks" by the GCs to the North's economy that does not exists anyway, will be directed at Turkey and no one else.

You are off in fantasy land. Action agsint INDVDUALS is action agsint indviduals. In fact not only is it NOT action against Turkey it actual removes Turkey's liability partialy by choosing to seek redress from the indivdual.

Eventualy all the options available to GC that have lost property in the north will be available to TC that have lost property in the south once the RoC finally catches up and offers a local remedy that the ECHR accepts as valid for TC deprived use of their property by the ROC. We may even see a case for trespass against indivduals using TC property in the South. Certainly the RoC courts will deem such use to not be trespass, but it is far from clear that the ECHR would agree with that view.

[repulsewarrior]

Vaughan shit stirring and talking about war is not doing anybody good, except amusing you. I am very much against war, since apart from the pain it will cause it will only delay my restitution to my home. However, if there is a war I do not think it would be a conventional war but a guerilla war for up to 5 years. I think cheap but professional mercenaries will be used as they were used in Croatia. 100 African mercenaries could blow up a couple of dams, power stations or bridges in Kyrenia in 24 hours while the 40,000 18 year old conscripts are in their Ben 10 jam-jams freshly washed and ironed by their mothers.

I agree that the carpet baggers and settlers would be like rats jumping off a sinking ship. The Carpet baggers probably do not really care about Cyprus other than as cheap place for a holiday home and settlers only think of it as a place which pays a little better for fruit picking than Anatolia.

I also note that the more fanatical Turkish posters seems to focus only on compensation. Most refugees in the diaspora at least would prefer restitution. If you have money why would wouldn't you want to hold onto the property. Compensation would be favored by the more desperate people. Maybe they want to gamble it in a church converted into a Casino in the "TRNC." Refugees should be allowed to sell property directly to foreigners if they wish why stuff around with the commission except to claim for some compensation for loss of use. refugees can keep the title then deal with as they wish including selling if and when its potential is realized. Compensation for legal title or "exchanged" land in the South is for the birds.

Also does anyone know why so many claims are registered as abandoned. Are these the claims dropped once the Cyprus government declared the Commission illegal?

what this ruling means, is more choice. erolz has brought up some interesting points. it recognises the Sovereignty of Cyprus. it identifies Turkey as the authority that is offering redress. it allows for a settlement of issues monetary and immediate, the IPC. and as it was implied, Rauf Denktash is not happy because the rulings as a set allow for "greek" possession of "turkish" land.

...indeed, the Turkish Cypriot can sell his land in the south (and we hope it is not double dipping); the procedure is long and arduous. Greek Cypriots who want to sell have with the IPC as a means; just as difficult.

...the existence of a TRNC gains no credibility from this ruling, although the judges fear a result more harmful without compassionate thinking on their part. there will be many circumstances where without the Judiciary settlement is made, as time goes on, this cost (now that there are the means) will be factored into the process. the victory i think goes to decency once again, and adds balance to an impasse which needs its resolution. soon, i hope some will want to rent their properties, others will become Principals in the enterprise that may have been built on the land. others will return to the patrimony that is theirs, some will sell.

[Solveit]

Re' pursuing for trespass and enforcement in other EU courts.

Prior to this ECHR ruling there was no 'approved' mechanism/route in place to determine the outcome of property disputes. In the Orams case the facts were that Mr A is the rightful 'legal' owner and therefore the UK court enforcing the ROC court judgement was fairly straightforward.

Now that there is an approved mechanism in place it may well be that a UK court (or other) could refuse to enforce the judgement in the public interest because any ROC court judgement could be construed to be circumnavigating the now 'approved' process. Or, that the due process now recognised was not followed in that the ROC court ruling would be outside of that due process, especially as any ROC judgement could be deemed as pre-empting (possibly wrongly) a decision yet to be made by the IPC.

So you see, the 'flood' of trespass cases would not be as simple to enforce as you think imho.

[erolz3]

...indeed, the Turkish Cypriot can sell his land in the south (and we hope it is not double dipping); the procedure is long and arduous.

Actualy this is still not yet the case and will not be the case for some time to come. The fact is that the RoC via its existing laws have been preventing TC from use of thier property by placing requirments on reclaming said property that would not stand up in the ECHR. That is why the RoC settled for 100,000s of eruos for loss of use in the most recent case, because it was guilty of preventing TC using their land and it knew it was. The law they have pledge to change as part of that settlement has yet to be changed and I strongly suspect that if and when it finally is, it will still not be sufficent to remove the obstacles in all different senarios that will mean for certain categories of TC the RoC will still be denying them use via unjustifiable requirements on reclaiming thier property.

Greek Cypriots who want to sell have with the IPC as a means; just as difficult.

The IPC is VERY different than a court of law as a means to setteling such issue and in may ways superior. Application can be made at minimal cost and no risk and any determination made by the IPC is non binding. You can go and apply and see what the eventual offer is all at minimal cost and then decide if you wish to accept that offer. This is TOTALY different from what a TC, even one that has met the un justifed requirments the RoC places on them, has to do to persue return of their property via the RoC courts.

[Kikapu]

I am not sure that you assesment of how easy and chaep it will be to get a RoC ruling for tresspass, then apply to EU court outside of the RoC to enforce the judgement against threat of siezing of assets in that state is as as you think it is. If the volume of such cases gets into the 100s or beyond then it will only take longer and longer and invetibaly cost more and more. Again pursuing this option will alievate trnc/turkey of having to pay compensation for loss of use to that claimant. Ultimately if the claimant is happy with the current maket prices of compensation then the IPC would be the better route, in that it is a single procedure that addresses the compensation for the property itself and the loss of use claim as well and it is not a legal court and thus whilst specialsit advice may be worth paying for it will not be as much as laywers charge to bring a court case.

Erol, I'm talking about TCs properties in the south and not in other EU states, where the plaintiff winning his case against a TC who has been sued for using the property of the GC owner in the north. If a GC wins against a TC, whether the TCs shows up to defend himself or not, once a writ has been served on that individual, surely any award made to the GC in the RoC courts can then go after that TC's property in the south to satisfy his judgement given to him by the RoC courts.!

[erolz3]

Erol, I'm talking about TCs properties in the south and not in other EU states, where the plaintiff winning his case against a TC who has been sued for using the property of the GC owner in the north. If a GC wins against a TC, whether the TCs shows up to defend himself or not, once a writ has been served on that individual, surely any award made to the GC in the RoC courts can then go after that TC's property in the south to satisfy his judgement given to him by the RoC courts.!

In such a case the TC defendant will either have to pay the few thousand euros fines and vacate the property that was the subject of the court order, or risk having their property in the south used to meet the court order payments, but only to meet the fines, any residual value left over after the fines are paid remains the TC defandants money.

It like saying because I get a court order against you saying you have to pay me 5000 euro for whatever cause, I can take your property in the south away. Yes in theory if you refused to pay, after much time and aggrevation I could eventually get the court to sell your property, give me the 5000 euros and you the rest. In practice you would just pay me the 5000 euros.

Look at the actual sums awarded in the Orams case. They are not 'life destroying'. They are also substanitaly less than would have been awarded for loss of use by IPC/ECHR.

[CBBB]

Erol, I'm talking about TCs properties in the south and not in other EU states, where the plaintiff winning his case against a TC who has been sued for using the property of the GC owner in the north. If a GC wins against a TC, whether the TCs shows up to defend himself or not, once a writ has been served on that individual, surely any award made to the GC in the RoC courts can then go after that TC's property in the south to satisfy his judgement given to him by the RoC courts.!

In such a case the TC defendant will either have to pay the few thousand euros fines and vacate the property that was the subject of the court order, or risk having their property in the south used to meet the court order payments, but only to meet the fines, any residual value left over after the fines are paid remains the TC defandants money.

It like saying because I get a court order against you saying you have to pay me 5000 euro for whatever cause, I can take your property in the south away. Yes in theory if you refused to pay, after much time and aggrevation I could eventually get the court to sell your property, give me the 5000 euros and you the rest. In practice you would just pay me the 5000 euros.

Look at the actual sums awarded in the Orams case. They are not 'life destroying'. They are also substanitaly less than would have been awarded for loss of use by IPC/ECHR.

35 years 'rent' will be a bit more than 5000 Euros!

[only me]

Wake up you toss pots in the SOUTH. The world and the EU are SLOWLY waking up to fact that you have been lying for years about your actions in the 60's and 70's. Admit your Genocide and we can move on. Start to teach your children the truth.

[apc2010]

Wake up you toss pots in the SOUTH. The world and the EU are SLOWLY waking up to fact that you have been lying for years about your actions in the 60's and 70's. Admit your Genocide and we can move on. Start to teach your children the truth.

Which genocide?????